Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

The first images for the new lenses that were reported last week are making their way around the web. Below are the first images of the upcoming Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS and the Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lenses.

These lenses will be announced sometime in the next 12 hours or so.

 

Source: [DCI]

cr

 

[candyman]

I am very curious about the quality of the 16-35 f/4 IS.
Can't wait for the reviews...

EDIT: interesting to see the design matching the 24-70 II
Maybe the new Canon L line?

[Lightmaster]

I am very curious about the quality

and price.

would be nice when canons suprises us with a price like sigma... well i can dream.

[TLN]

EDIT: interesting to see the design matching the 24-70 II
Maybe the new Canon L line?

That's the reason it looks fake to me..

[Haydn1971]

Price....
Expecting the 10-18mm to be twice the price of the 18-55mm - due to a smaller market, than the kit lens
Expecting the 16-35mm f4 IS to start just a tad more costly than the 16-35mm f2.8 II, dropping to about 4/5th's of the price, then a new 16-35mm f2.8 III coming in at nearly twice the price of the f4.0 in about 12 months...  Both as sharp as current primes

[pierlux]

Finally! It seems the year of the lens is about to begin...

[Hardwire]

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?

If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).

Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??

[ajfotofilmagem]

In principle, I'm not bothered by having more options, even if I do not buy any of them. If the image quality is good, and suitable price I would like to try in the future.

[Lightmaster]

do you need IS?

Video

[Haydn1971]

That's the reason it looks fake to me..

The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me...   77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now

[TLN]

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?

If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).

Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??

My thoughts, exactly.
I've bought a 17-40 for less then $500 recently, in perfect condition. I know it have some drawbacks, and not perfect. So is 16-35II, compared to 35L I own.
That new lenses should be really, really sharp and rise the quality mark. Otherwise I'd prefer primes over them.

[Haydn1971]

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?

Probably going to be tack sharp into the corners, continues Canons theme of f2.8/f4.0 prime rivalling zooms - the 17-40 although cheap and popular won't bring as much profit for Canon as a new toy that people will want to spend silly money on....    Although I suspect they will make sheds more profit from the lower margin, higher volume 10-18mm

[Etienne]

A really sharp, contrasty, low distortion 16 - 35 f/4L IS that's smaller and lighter than the 16-35 2.8 would be a real winner at $1200 - $1300 for me.

[Sabaki]

Purely speculating here but maybe the 16-35 f/4.0 replaces the 17-40 and the 12/14-24 f/2.8 could take the top wide angle position from the 16-35 f/2.8ii.

I do hope so, I'm more keen on a 12/14-24mm reticulinear that a next gen 16-35.

[Sabaki]

Just noted the STM designation. Is it logical to always pair STM with IS?

Would seem that combination serves videography well.